On August 22, 2023 a
Tentative Ruling
was filed
involving a dispute between
Velasquez, Andrew,
and
Jabbour, Johnny,
for Enforcement of Judgment Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
939“;
NIOR
MOX'NR/ gocrotléo ED
~4' )VBOEFR
W
MA
A/e
wk?”
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALISPRNIA I
4
2024
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 45L
.HEHMN
‘
ANDREW VELASQUEZ, Case N0.: CIVSBZ3 19924 u»
Plaintiff,
Judge: David E. Driscoll
Dept: $22
vs.
RULING 0N DEMURRER AND MOTION
(CFO) JOHNNY JABBOUR, T0 STRIKE
Defendant
The Demurrer and Motion to Strike by Defendant, (CFO) Johnny Jabbour, came
on regularly for hearing on February 7, 2024, in Dept. 822 of the above-entitled court, Hon.
David E Driscoll, presiding. Attorney Angelo A. DuPlaintier appeared on behalf 0f the moving
defendant and Plaintiff Andrew Velasquez appeared, Pro Se. Defendant presented oral
argument. The plaintiff failed to file written opposition to the motions and, accordingly, the
Court had the authority to prohibit oral argument by the Plaintiff. However, over the objection
0f the Defendant, the court exercised its discretion and permitted oral argument by the Plaintiff
in opposition to the motions. The court has also reviewed the moving papers and pleadings. The
20 matter was taken under submission and the court now rules as follows:
21 DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER:
22
The court sustained the defendant’s demurrer t0 the original complaint 0n November 28,
23
2023, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on November 28,
24
2023, followed up by another amended complaint on December 12, 2023. For purposes 0f this
25
26 demurrer the court will refer to the last-in-time complaint as the Second Amended Complaint
27 (SAC). The SAC is the current operative pleading. The Defendant has demurred pursuant t0
28
RULING ON DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE - l
CCP § 430. 10(e) and (t), i.e. the SAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
or is otherwise uncertain (unintelligible).
The plaintiff’s oral argument in opposition to the motions consisted of reciting verbatim
the SAC, omitting the language referencing the Commission for Judicial Performance. The court
takes judicial notice of the plaintiff‘s prior complaints filed in this action to determine, when
taken together, whether the plaintiff might potentially be able to state a legal cause 0f action as
against the defendant. Upon the Court’s review, the present SAC may be attempting to state a
cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty arising from a document that creates a trust. The
SAC, when taken together with the original complaint, may also be attempting to assert a cause
of action against the defendant for breach of contract attendant to the sale or attempted sale of an
automobile. The causes of action are not properly segregated or titled.
14
A general demurrer challenges a complaint for failure to state a cause of action under
15
Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e). It is granted where the facts alleged on
l6
the face of the complaint fail to state a valid claim under any possible legal theory entitling the
l7
18 plaintiff to relief against the demurring defendant. (Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (2009)
l9 45 Cal.4th 992, 998.) The plaintiff may be mistaken as to the nature of the case or the legal
20
theory 0n which he or she can prevail, but if the essential facts of some valid cause of action are
21
alleged, the complaint is good against a general demurrer. (Quelimane C0. v. Stewart Title
22
Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39; see also Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. C0. (1973) 9 Cal.3d
23
24 566, 572.)
25 The court’s review of the operative SAC, even when taken in tandem with the original
26
complaint, reveals that even under the most liberal interpretation, the SAC, similar to the original
27
complaint, is unintelligible and fails to state facts to support causes of action for breach of
28
RULING OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE - 2
Document Filed Date
March 14, 2024
Case Filing Date
August 22, 2023
Category
Enforcement of Judgment Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
939“; NIOR MOX'NR/ gocrotléo ED ~4' )VBOEFR W MA A/e wk?” SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALISPRNIA I 4 2024 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 45L .HEHMN ‘ ANDREW VELASQUEZ, Case N0.: CIVSBZ3 19924 u» Plaintiff, Judge: David E. Driscoll Dept: $22 vs. RULING 0N DEMURRER AND MOTION (CFO) JOHNNY JABBOUR, T0 STRIKE Defendant The Demurrer and Motion to Strike by Defendant, (CFO) Johnny Jabbour, came on regularly for hearing on February 7, 2024, in Dept. 822 of the above-entitled court, Hon. David E Driscoll, presiding. Attorney Angelo A. DuPlaintier appeared on behalf 0f the moving defendant and Plaintiff Andrew Velasquez appeared, Pro Se. Defendant presented oral argument. The plaintiff failed to file written opposition to the motions and, accordingly, the Court had the authority to prohibit oral argument by the Plaintiff. However, over the objection 0f the Defendant, the court exercised its discretion and permitted oral argument by the Plaintiff in opposition to the motions. The court has also reviewed the moving papers and pleadings. The 20 matter was taken under submission and the court now rules as follows: 21 DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER: 22 The court sustained the defendant’s demurrer t0 the original complaint 0n November 28, 23 2023, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on November 28, 24 2023, followed up by another amended complaint on December 12, 2023. For purposes 0f this 25 26 demurrer the court will refer to the last-in-time complaint as the Second Amended Complaint 27 (SAC). The SAC is the current operative pleading. The Defendant has demurred pursuant t0 28 RULING ON DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE - l CCP § 430. 10(e) and (t), i.e. the SAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or is otherwise uncertain (unintelligible). The plaintiff’s oral argument in opposition to the motions consisted of reciting verbatim the SAC, omitting the language referencing the Commission for Judicial Performance. The court takes judicial notice of the plaintiff‘s prior complaints filed in this action to determine, when taken together, whether the plaintiff might potentially be able to state a legal cause 0f action as against the defendant. Upon the Court’s review, the present SAC may be attempting to state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty arising from a document that creates a trust. The SAC, when taken together with the original complaint, may also be attempting to assert a cause of action against the defendant for breach of contract attendant to the sale or attempted sale of an automobile. The causes of action are not properly segregated or titled. 14 A general demurrer challenges a complaint for failure to state a cause of action under 15 Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e). It is granted where the facts alleged on l6 the face of the complaint fail to state a valid claim under any possible legal theory entitling the l7 18 plaintiff to relief against the demurring defendant. (Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (2009) l9 45 Cal.4th 992, 998.) The plaintiff may be mistaken as to the nature of the case or the legal 20 theory 0n which he or she can prevail, but if the essential facts of some valid cause of action are 21 alleged, the complaint is good against a general demurrer. (Quelimane C0. v. Stewart Title 22 Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39; see also Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. C0. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 23 24 566, 572.) 25 The court’s review of the operative SAC, even when taken in tandem with the original 26 complaint, reveals that even under the most liberal interpretation, the SAC, similar to the original 27 complaint, is unintelligible and fails to state facts to support causes of action for breach of 28 RULING OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE - 2